An inquest’s scope must not exclude evidence relevant to answering the statutory questions

Leeson v HM Area Coroner for Manchester South (Donald McPherson & nine other interested parties) [2023] EWHC 62 (Admin) It is a very unusual coronial judicial review that has ten interested parties.  Here nine of the ten were insurance companies with whom the bereaved widower, Mr McPherson, had taken out ‘excessive’ insurance on his wife’s life […]

Read More… from An inquest’s scope must not exclude evidence relevant to answering the statutory questions

PFD reports & PFD evidence: Discretion and Subjectivity

Dillon v Assistant Coroner For Rutland & N Leicestershire [2022] EWHC 3186 KB (Admin) Challenging a Coroner’s refusal to issue a report to prevent future deaths (‘a PFD report’)[1] is always going to be an uphill struggle. Whilst there is no coronial discretion, and a report is mandatory, if a coroner determines action should be […]

Read More… from PFD reports & PFD evidence: Discretion and Subjectivity

Sandilands, Shoreham and Sala: AIBs and the Coronial Investigation

It is now six years since Singh J and the Lord Chief Justice considered the relationship between Accident Investigation Branch investigations (Rail, Air & Marine) and coroners’ inquests in ‘the Norfolk case’.[1] In that instance the issue was whether a coroner had the power to order the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (“AAIB”) to disclose a […]

Read More… from Sandilands, Shoreham and Sala: AIBs and the Coronial Investigation